Talk:December 2010 lunar eclipse: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:: I have added a reference to an article about this eclipse published on NASA's official website, citing a US Naval Observatory employee named Geoff Chester as saying this is the first Solstice eclipse since Dec. 21, 1638, as well as only the second in at least the past 2,010 years. Seems like an authoritative source. I have seen various news reports emerging today citing 1554 as the last one, but I can't figure that out. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
:: I have added a reference to an article about this eclipse published on NASA's official website, citing a US Naval Observatory employee named Geoff Chester as saying this is the first Solstice eclipse since Dec. 21, 1638, as well as only the second in at least the past 2,010 years. Seems like an authoritative source. I have seen various news reports emerging today citing 1554 as the last one, but I can't figure that out. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
Great article except for "Times for North America". WP:Whatever the one is that said we should be globally-relevant. |
Revision as of 00:22, 21 December 2010
Astronomy Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Future event tag
It doesn't make sense to tag this with the future event tag. That tag is used where the information is tentative, or subject to change. In contrast, this eclipse is an astronomical certainty.
In the unlikely event that the article transmutes to include uncertain information, then this tag will be appropriate. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the explanation! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Template database test
I replaced the stat table with a template version, a first test of a generalize database for lunar eclipses. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- See more at: User:SockPuppetForTomruen/saros_project
Times
Are the times GMT+00? If not, why not? It would be much clearer if they were. 62.121.54.18 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- The "contact times" in the RIGHT-SIDE table are in (UTC). Tom Ruen (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I will edit the times to be UT, so that the article is npov for global use. unless someone else does it first, i might not get back to it. I'm running a global network of webcasts by and for several organisations, streaming and re-streaming the moon and the events. should be awesome; as we did for NASA's INOMN. mozasaur (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The times listed here do not match the nasa website for this
http://www.mreclipse.com/LEdata/TLE2010Dec21/TLE2010Dec21.html
66.176.72.195 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Is the Full Moon notable? Or even full?
According to The Farmer's Almanac, the full moon occurs right in the middle of this six-hour eclipse (3:15 AM EST). I find measuring and analyzing all these rotations, tilts and spins makes me dizzy, so I can't figure out if eclipses and full moons are regularly correlated or if this really is as strange a coincidence as it seems to my layman mind. If someone more moon-savvy (a lunatic?) reads this, could you either insert this factoid into the article in proper moonspeak, or discredit it and ridicule me accordingly? Also, is there a term for a full moon that also happens to appear empty?
I will resist the urge to add mentions of the 2012 "connection" till after the fact, presuming it turns out to be both notable and survivable. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- A lunar eclipse indeed always occurs at full moon as the lunar eclipse article will tell you. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was just coming back to hang my (now less) ignorant head in shame and declare a false alarm after some simple Googling. I have to say, though, that was an amazingly quick response, especially by Wikipedia standards! Good to know somebody's manning this ship. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm interested in your questions, Incredible Hulk, having worked with full moons and eclipses quite a bit, running public events etc. I have noticed that uninformed skeptical style in quite a lot of my historic activity here, and even in astronomical societies themselves. It is worth remembering that google existed a long time before wikipedia, and reputable sites even longer. Fred Espanak for example. Wierd how your use of the device "I will resist the urge to add mentions of the 2012 "connection" till after the fact," is self contradictory, and in fact speaks of a non existent connection. This is 2010 in case you hadn't noticed. On the other hand, at least someone is keen to comment and take an interest, so thats good, and needed more here. Notice that I have resisted the urge to jump in and correct the 'USA centred' times, useless to most of the global population, so my behaviour is moderating too i suppose. cheers guys.mozasaur (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was just coming back to hang my (now less) ignorant head in shame and declare a false alarm after some simple Googling. I have to say, though, that was an amazingly quick response, especially by Wikipedia standards! Good to know somebody's manning this ship. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Fabulous Article
gotta say thanks for a fabulous article. Curious that at one time the moon and eclipses were perhaps THE MOST important things to humans, and therefore i smile at the tag of 'LOW' importance. For me it meant a half page article in our newspaper (couple hundred thousand prints, not that important) and a substantial photo of me and a Full Eclipsed Moon. The degree of importance I suppose could be judged by the 200+ people that turned up on the southern coast to look through our telecopes, take photos, etc, probably a local and perhaps a national record for such activity, despite the 10 degrees C and the 50km/hr + Gale blowing salt water in from the ocean. The 'roaring forties' certainly roared that night. We are at 41 Degrees South. And more recently we ran a global event for NASA's INOMN, not very notable or important??. if youre on facebook you can read the article here DomPost Newspaper article on Full Moon Eclipse. . mozasaur (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Paul. It should be an exciting event! But this article is actually pretty minimalist! Feel feel to improve the content. I'm more a graphics/data guy than writing prose! Tom Ruen (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Inaccurate Date of Last Solstice/Lunar Eclipse
I wanted to point out that the claim that this is the first total lunar eclipse to take place on the same day as the December solstice is not entirely accurate. It all depends on which time zone you're using. If you're only going by UT then yes, that's true, but if you move to an area that now uses Central Standard Time in North America, or farther west, there was a total lunar eclipse on December 22, 1703 at 11:30 PM CST (-7:00) and the solstice was at 3:09 AM CST (-7:00). If the two events occur within 24 hours of each other, they will happen on the same day *somewhere* in the world. UT might be used as a standard convention, but the timing of events will still be adjusted in different parts of the world.
On the other hand, if we're looking at the last time a total lunar eclipse happened on the same day (somewhere on Earth) as the December solstice *and* it also happened before the solstice was exact (as is the case in December 2010), then yes, 1638 was the last time that happened. In the case of 1703, the solstice happened just before the eclipse. Pegasuss (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think its worth noting it is near solstice (since the full moon is at its northern most declination for the eclipse) but comparing "exact calendar dates" to centuries ago is silly trivia. More interesting perhaps is the Metonic cycle of 19 years, so nearly identical dates also for: Partial, December 21, 1991, Total, December 20, 2029, Penumbral, December 20, 2048. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I too had noticed the 1991 partial eclipse on the day of the solstice. And I agree that the noting of "the last time this happened" can get a little silly, with so many possible factors involved (total vs partial; time zones; etc). However, I'm just responding to what's in the article. If a claim is made about "the last time this happened" then it should at least be accurate. Who has the authority to go in and correct this on the actual page? Sorry to not know this already, but I haven't been keeping up with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines much lately. Pegasuss (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have added a reference to an article about this eclipse published on NASA's official website, citing a US Naval Observatory employee named Geoff Chester as saying this is the first Solstice eclipse since Dec. 21, 1638, as well as only the second in at least the past 2,010 years. Seems like an authoritative source. I have seen various news reports emerging today citing 1554 as the last one, but I can't figure that out. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Great article except for "Times for North America". WP:Whatever the one is that said we should be globally-relevant.